Re: Conformance in XML processors

David Megginson (ak117@freenet.carleton.ca)
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 11:09:23 -0500


Paul Prescod writes:

> There is a third way to read the situation: the optionality of the
> features works to reassure people that XML processing is simple, but the
> usefulness of them will encourage users to request them. (idea: one easy
> way to encourage vendors to implement them is to depend upon them in
> XLL) For instance XLL depends on ID/IDREF.

This doesn't really address the point, though. If notations and data
attributes are optional, then either support for embedding non-XML
objects is also optional, or notations and data attributes are not the
preferred way of embedding non-XML objects. If they are not the
preferred way (you probably rightly suggest that embedded URLs and
MIME/HTTP will be more popular), then why does the spec include them
at all, and cause so much unnecessary confusion among non-SGML people?

All the best,

David

-- 
David Megginson                 ak117@freenet.carleton.ca
Microstar Software Ltd.         dmeggins@microstar.com
      http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/dmeggins/

xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@ic.ac.uk Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; (un)subscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@ic.ac.uk the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@ic.ac.uk)